Haurin Roman Gonzalez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 584 F. App'x 914 ( 2014 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 3 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
HAURIN ESTUARDO ROMAN No. 12-73285
GONZALEZ,
Agency No. A071-589-375
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Haurin Estuardo Roman Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. Our
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), and we dismiss
in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Roman Gonzalez’s unexhausted challenges
to the agency’s denial of his applications for asylum and special rule cancellation
of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of
1997. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack
jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative
proceedings before the BIA.”).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of
voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1006
(9th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct.
1678 (2013).
The BIA did not err or violate due process by limiting its review to those
issues that Roman Gonzalez raised on appeal to the BIA. See Abebe, 432 F.3d at
1041 (“The BIA is presumably aware of its ability to decline to review an
argument when a petitioner has not properly raised the argument on appeal to the
BIA.”).
2 12-73285
To the extent Roman Gonzalez raises an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim, this claim must first be exhausted before the agency. See Ontiveros-Lopez
v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (“We . . . require an alien who argues
ineffective assistance of counsel to exhaust his administrative remedies by first
presenting the issue to the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 12-73285